Segrist v. Crabtree’s Empirical Analysis
131 U.S. 287 · 1889
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1972 · most notably Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. St. Louis Cypress Co. (1908), In re Moran (1906)
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Harkness v. Russell · The Kimball · Peter v. Beverly · Wyllys Lyman v. The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One of the principal questions arising upon the evidence was whether the two notes, payable respectively in September, 1881, and September, 1882, were received in actual payment, (in which event the remedy is upon the notes,) or only as evidence of the amount to be paid by Crabtree. In Sheeby v. Mandevíle, 6 Cranch, 253, 264 , Chief Justice Marshall said: ‘That a note, without a special contract, would not, of itself, discharge the original cause of action, is not denied. But it is insisted that if, by express agreement, the note is received as payment, it satisfies the original contract, and the party receiving it must take Ms remedy on it. This principle appears to be well settled. . . . Since, then, the plaintiff has not taken issue on the averment that the note was given and received in discharge of the account, but has demurred to the plea, that fact is admitted: and, b'eing admitted, it bars the action for the goods.’ In Peter v. Beverley, 10 Pet. 532 , 568, it was said that the acceptance of a negotiable note for an antecedent debt will not extinguish such debt, unless the evidence is at least so clear and satisfactory as to-leave no reasonable doubt that such was the intention of the parties. In Layman v. Bank of the United States, 12 How. 225, 243 , it was held that the mere acceptance of the note by the creditor does not necessarily operate as satisfaction of the original debt, and whether or not there was an agreement at the time to receive it in satisfaction, or ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matheu v. Colón““The court below properly held that they could not rightfully retake the cattle while they retained the notes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.